Posted by:
CKing
at Tue Apr 29 22:36:22 2008 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by CKing ]
>>On the fact that birds DO see color. Deer DONT see color. And if you find big poop in the woods, and a bear lives in the woods, even if no one has EVER seen him poop, chances are its bear poop! >>
Don't know. I am not on expert on scat. I would not assume that a big pile of manure necessary belongs to a bear.
>>Biology is a soft science but you have to go along with logical studies until something else is proved dont you?>>
Biology is not a "soft science." Biology is science.
>>I am not saying be a lemming by any means, but dont disagree to disagree without some kind of counter proposal....>>
I disagree with the mimicry hypothesis because there is simply no evidence in nature of predators avoiding the tricolored pattern or fearing it. I do have an alternative hypothesis, i.e. crypsis, and there are observations to support the crypsis theory.
>>what else could have caused the proliferation of color and banding in unrelated genera of snakes worldwide besides predation???>>
Crypsis. The tricolored pattern is good camourflage coloration.
>>The fact that it is so prevalent and mostly on cryptic sp.? Snakes are rather simple animals, there is no social or sexual purpose. It is not because its advantagous catching prey. By elimination alone it HAS to be predator avoidance.>>
You have not eliminated crypsis (cryptic coloration), and you still have no evidence to support aposematism. I am still waiting for Harry Greene to write a second edition of his book, in which he finally shows us evidence that a predator, upon seeing the tricolored pattern, will flee instead of attacking the so-called coral snake mimics. Such evidence did not exist in the first edition of the book. I am confident that such evidence will never surface, because the aposematism hypothesis is simply false.
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: studys have been done - CKing, Tue Apr 29 22:36:22 2008
